Anthea Ong
Singapore
“Hence, I recommend that the Government reduce the required period for involuntary no pay leave or duration of income loss from three consecutive months to one month and allow individuals with no bank account and daily-rated or ad hoc workers to be eligible for CSG.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low for her response. I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could answer my question. Should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts? That is one.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I then ask if MOH has the intention to increase funding for these community health organisations?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am very happy to hear that we will be co-investing in these start-ups. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if there is a plan in this co-investing to take equity or is that in the form of grants?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,851,670,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates.(proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,710,800,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary De…”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,063,442,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Anthea Ong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just realised that my laptop is not charged. So, I am going to use my phone to read the speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill signals Singapore's intention and resolve to join the global community in ending the flows of plastic waste, and unsustainable consumption and disposal of plastic waste more generally. This is in line with Singapore’s commitment to being a responsible global citizen, especially in environmental sustainability. However, in light of recent events, there are four issues relating to the transport of hazardous waste, including plastic waste, which I would like to address. First, I would like to ask the Minister on our compliance with our obligations under the Basel Convention so that we can evaluate our progress with the handling of hazardous waste. What is the current status of Singapore’s Basel Convention obligations? How many permits are issued for import, export and transit respectively? What are the destination countries where our waste goes to? According to NEA, only 7% of the 40,700 tonnes of plastic trash that was recycled last year were processed locally and the rest was shipped overseas. It appears difficult to know what happens to the trash afterwards. How do we know they are recycled or dumped properly? A 2018 Business Times news article reported that "much of the plastic that is logged as recycled is shipped overseas – to China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia – where, if it cannot eventually be properly sorted and processed, it is incinerated or tipped into the sea.”
“Yes, cancellations of events are rampant right now; and these are even business and commercial activities.”
“Mr Speaker, I agree with Minister Lawrence Wong that fear inflicts more damage sometimes than the virus itself. F-E-A-R is also false evidence appearing real so I am going to ask Minister Gan Kim Yong if I can go straight to the source of fear, which is the fear of death. Could he explain to us how death occurs from this virus? Because there is this panic and hysteria that the moment we "kena", we are just going to drop dead. So, it would be really useful if we can explain how death occurs from one who actually gets infected. What I understand is that most of the death cases right now from China have occurred in people who are elderly and who are at risk. It would be really helpful for us to know how the virus impacts us physically and that could lead to death. The second question I have is looking at the Fear Factor that impacts the economy and employment. There have been a lot of companies that are cancelling commercial activities and projects and events. Let me declare my interest, I am a founder of Hush, which is a social enterprise, the Hush TeaBar, and even for us as a social enterprise, the next three months, all the projects are cancelled and we are not the only one. I am wondering if the Government or the Ministry of Trade and Industry perhaps think that there may be merit to issue clear guidelines to companies in terms of cancellation or postponement of commercial activities and business events, because there is definitely a knock-on effect on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and social enterprises. Also, now that I know from Minister Gan Kim Yong that the virus is not airborne, I really would encourage all of us to take three deep breaths every time, every day, as we calm our minds and heart.”
“Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if the Government has channels and measures for citizens who want to seek redress against the Government for what they deem as unfair public disclosure since the Government is not bound by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)?”
“" Smart regulation has allowed MAS to be nimble and adaptable as a world-class regulator and central bank. MAS is also known for its "regulatory sandbox" approach, sometimes described as "regulation running alongside innovation". I am aware MAS is planning a public consultation exercise in 2020 – earlier than later, I hope – to inform the upcoming, finally, guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment. We must act with the fierce urgency of now. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on what I have outlined above and his assurance that MAS' regulatory roadmap is running alongside, if not ahead of, this climate crisis so as to build a climate-change resilient, robust and responsible financial industry for Singapore.”
“In our licensing considerations for these digital banks, we have made provisions to enable new players that have regional reach and diverse customer bases. We must, therefore, incentivise and harness the innovative essence of these new digital partnerships not only to encourage the collection and use of new data but also to create new sustainable financing solutions. For example, ING Real Estate Finance and a partner launched ING REF Sustainable App in 2016. Within two years, it helped identify €35 million of potential energy cost savings within its real estate portfolio. Can the Minister please clarify if sustainable finance will be a key component of our digital bank roadmap for Singapore? Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted in his recent New Year message that "A Singapore turned inward cannot survive". Indeed, we are and always will be an open economy. Financial services directly contribute a significant 13% to our gross domestic product in 2018 or S$64 billion. Its indirect contribution fuelling the rest of the economy is clearly way more. Mr Deputy Speaker, the eminent economist Prof Hyman Minsky, famous for predicting the subprime crisis and the "Minsky Moment", noted that financial crises are caused by hidden risks building up on balance sheets. Given what we now know of climate change and its impact from science and data, we absolutely cannot let such risks build up with little or no visibility. Large institutional investors like Aviva Investors share the same view. Its Chief Investment Officer said recently, quote "understanding climate risk isn’t an exercise in trying to save species and habitats; this is also about protecting people's retirement income and their investments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) released a report called "Green Finance Opportunities in ASEAN" in 2017. Green investments needed in the ASEAN region amounted to US$3 trillion between 2016 and 2030. Beyond this being a business opportunity, accelerating the growth of green finance reduces instability to our financial system in the future. As NGFS has noted, "the impacts of climate change could be irreversible, if not mitigated."’ According to their 2018 Sustainability Report, DBS provided S$2.4 billion of sustainable funding. While our banks have been highly positive on the green finance opportunities, there is still much we can do. A number of countries have established national green banks to provide initial funding to develop clean energy, transport, energy-efficient markets. The Green Bank Network, based out of Washington DC, currently consists of 15 national, state or city level member banks that aim to catalyse green financing. This includes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) of Australia. The United Kingdom (UK) government seeded the UK Green Investment Bank in 2012 that continues to deploy green capital successfully. Mr Deputy Speaker, as we debate today on improving and strengthening our banking industry with this Bill, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on our plans for national green banks and green financing, including the standards for green loans, much like we have in ASEAN Green Bond Standards which recommend disclosure and external review of impact. The financial industry has been all abuzz with the opening of five digital bank licences by MAS.”
“The Commonwealth Bank of Australia was sued for misleading investors by failing to disclose climate-related risks in its 2016 annual report. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Singapore's recent review of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Sustainable Banking Regulations, only Malaysia has firmly expected banks to assess, mitigate and publicly disclose their portfolio-level exposure to material environmental and social (E&S) risks, including climate risk and information on transactions assessed/escalated/approved with conditions. Singapore should be requiring our banks to do the same. Accounting for climate risks is hard work, but there are existing networks like the Pilot Project by UN Environment Programme Finance Institute (UNEP-FI) on Implementing Recommendations by the Taskforce for Climate Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as well as the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) that can support our banks in this process. Mr Deputy Speaker, given the above, I would like to seek the Minister's clarifications on the following. Will we consider a timeline for mandatory TCFD disclosures for financial industries as well as listed companies, since voluntary regimes are typically not useful in generating comparable and usable industry-wide information? Is the Minister looking at a supervisory engagement roadmap on climate change? Will MAS support the banking industry with centrally-developed stress test scenarios that incorporate the views of experts and civil society? Will the Minister consider leading an ASEAN taskforce that embarks on a bottom-up modelling of business risks from climate change across our region, including the supply chain impacts across borders?”
“Stress testing portfolio risk is also an important part of risk management. Stress test scenarios should be centrally-developed, not individually designed, to ensure that there is alignment to the Paris Agreement target and geographically-relevant worst-case scenarios. Second, mitigating risks. We must applaud Singapore banks for moving quickly in announcing policies to cease financing new coal power plants. Two out of three banks will not be increasing their exposure to the transition risks of this industry. As more large banks and insurers decide to divest from coal power development, banks that continue to consider such projects are exposed to increasing risks that will be harder to mitigate. While the Association of Banks in Singapore has Responsible Banking Guidelines and a haze toolkit, these are voluntary standards. Bangladesh already has a mandatory environmental risk management guideline for Bangladeshi banks. In terms of international alignment, we note that only one Singapore bank is a signatory to the Equator Principles and none has signed the United Nations (UN) Principles of Responsible Banking. Mandatory standards in Singapore and international alignment are key signposts that our banking industry is robustly equipped to mitigate environmental, social and governance risks, particularly around climate change. Lastly, disclosing climate risks. As this Bill considers the publication requirements of banks under clause 12, we should also consider the disclosure of climate risks. The Governor of the Bank of England said that "to bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial decision-making, climate disclosure must become comprehensive". Investors are demanding more.”
“I agree broadly with the identified areas but the devil, as we know, is in the details. First, measuring risks. We know that bookkeeping carbon emissions produced by assets on a bank' balance sheet is always a challenge. However, here in Singapore, existing avenues, such as the Carbon Pricing Act, already allows banks to obtain carbon emissions-related data and estimate their borrower's exposure to carbon regulation and transition risks. Facilities with higher than 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions report their emissions to the National Environment Agency. Such data should be used for carbon risk assessment and be mandated for reporting by Singapore Exchange (SGX)-listed companies. Jurisdictions like Hong Kong already require this. We should institute this so that our banks have clear and comparable data to measure the risk exposure of their public-listed clients. As a former corporate banker myself, I would even push for data collection beyond just carbon emissions data. Our bankers must also obtain information from borrowers to understand where business value could be at risk. The 2011 floods in Thailand are a critical example of how risks could be embedded in the supply chain and may not be obvious through a carbon data metric. Operating loss from the floods incurred by Toyota and Honda increased by 37% and 55% respectively in 2011. Metric selection is also critical. Climate change risk has a long-tail and is widespread. Credit risk metrics have historically been insufficient in addressing tail-end risks. Metrics that simply average potential risk across multiple years underestimate potential impact. Solely focusing on high-carbon assets is a good first step but is still insufficient.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill that seeks to remove the two-tiered banking system that has been in place since 1968. It also seeks to consolidate the licensing and regulation of merchant banks under the Banking Act, in an effort to update and strengthen our regulatory framework in light of international and industry developments. Yet, there is one significant and glaring development that we must talk about in updating the Banking Act. As we speak, ongoing wildfires in Australia have burnt through five million hectares of land costing A$240 million in claims so far. Severe floods have ravaged much of Jakarta last week. With the growing prevalence of the climate-induced events in the world and specifically to our region, there is an urgent need to safeguard financial assets, yet be innovative in legislative interventions to reduce future risks to Singapore's banking industry. Do not take my word for it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Network for Greening our Financial System (NGFS) formed by a group of central bankers and supervisors worldwide, noted that climate risks, I quote, "could be larger, more widespread and diverse" than any other structural change. Given that it will come from all sectors and geographies, it is clear our financial system is exposed. Regulatory frameworks around climate-related risk management will allow for a systematic adoption of practices for the accelerated transition towards a sustainable banking sector. As a founding member of NGFS, MAS must lead and contribute in this area. In his speech on "Green Finance for a Sustainable World" last November, Minister Ong Ye Kung highlighted three key areas to build a financial industry resilient to climate change risks, namely, measuring, mitigating and disclosing these risks.”
“There are thousands of fake news out there that are non-partisan but actually are in the public interest to be POFMA-ed.”
“I thank the Minister again. In terms of the thousands of fake news that are possibly floating around the Internet – and the Minister has turned my question around to answer my other question which is pretty brilliant, I must say – yes, it does not seem far-reaching when you turned it around to say that way. But my question was actually, given that there are thousands of fake news floating around in the Web, does the POFMA Office monitor and flag the non-partisan news and statements that are made? Because there are so many out there, one of which that came to my mind was the fake NUS group and we did not do anything until Facebook took it down themselves. So, my concern is – and the Minister could be right it could just be a convergence of consequences and circumstances – to have four or five POFMA directions that are so partisan in nature, you would understand why there are really genuine concerns from the ground, especially like I said, there are actually thousands of fake news out there that could also be in the public interest to actually POFMA them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very considered responses. The Minister had assured the House and the public in May last year when we were debating on the POFMA Bill that the Bill will not be far-reaching, using the example of the 39 takedown orders under the Broadcasting Act since 1996. I think he mentioned that it was an average of one a year. POFMA has been used five times within a month, and just two months after coming into effect. Will the Minister please clarify if this is considered far-reaching or not? The second question I have is: the Minister has clarified that POFMA has a central listing on its website. But could I ask the Minister to clarify if the POFMA Office will provide a full description of the public interest rationale each time that POFMA is used according to section 7(1b) of POFMA? There are actually six specific public interest thresholds that are listed there in the Act. Last but not least, could I ask the Minister: we all agree that we are seeing an alarming rise of fake news. Can the Minister enlighten us on the number of fake news that are monitored and flagged by the POFMA Office and the various Ministries every month? I know that Thailand's anti-fake news centre talked about 8,000 fake news that were monitored and flagged just within the month of November 2019 alone. Can the Minister assure the House and Singaporeans that the Ministries and the POFMA Office are also monitoring and flagging news to use POFMA on, whether non-partisan or partisan? For example, the fake National University of Singapore (NUS) Facebook group ran for a while without being "POFMA-ed" until Facebook itself took it down.”
“No, and actually I was about to clarify to Minister Desmond Lee's point in response. When I say I felt uncomfortable, I am talking about the fact that clearly as a non-legally trained person, I just feel uncomfortable that all these are being discussed so openly. And I am totally with Minister Desmond Lee's point. I am not disputing there is a need for action, which is why I brought up another pathway for that action to be taken instead of this Motion in the House. My discomfort comes from us discussing so many details about the judgment. Given that I am not a lawyer, I was just uncomfortable. That could be potential interference or perceived to be interference, given that. I am not concluding anything, Minister.”
“Sir, I have outlined my concerns and clarifications for parts(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Motion and am of the view that the matters raised in these three parts may compromise the integrity and enforceability of the Town Councils Act as well as the judiciary process relating to the ongoing Court proceedings. Given that this Motion shall be voted in its entirety and not in parts, I wish to state for the record that I clearly support the ideals of integrity and accountability expected of Members of this House in part (i). Mr Speaker, I continue to be thankful every day for the privilege to be here in this House as a Nominated Member of Parliament. This privilege to serve comes with the commensurate responsibility that I take dutifully and seriously to add value to the discourse in this House as a non-partisan voice, hopefully in a considered manner and hopefully most of the time, to the best of my ability. It is with this same consideration that my abstention to this Motion today, when called for a vote, is premised on: (a) my inability to understand the call for action through this Motion with no legal force when they exist in an enforceable pathway in accordance with the rule of law under the Town Councils Act, which I believe already grants the Minister powers to do the same as proposed in part (iv) of the Motion; and (b) my inability to raise a concern that the debate in the House from the judgment of a Court proceeding that has yet to be fully concluded, as indicated in parts (ii) and (iii) of the Motion, may be perceived as interference of due process in the administration of justice. This abstention does not in any way signal any disagreement on my part with the principles of integrity and accountability that we must uphold as Members of Parliament, elected or not.”
“Under section 43(d) of the Act, it is expressively provided that if the Minister is of the opinion that there are deficiencies identified in the conduct of the affairs of the Town Council and/or an irregularity has occurred or is occurring in the financial affairs of the Town Council, the Minister may, by order, in writing, require the Town Council to "take specified remedial action to address the deficiencies and take specified action to correct the irregularity or to guard against the recurrence of irregularities or both." This entire section was an amendment added to the Act and passed by this House only two years back in 2017. In addition, Mr Speaker, I am also uncomfortable with judgment being discussed in this House. A Court proceeding, as I understand according to the Administration of Justice Protection Act, only concludes when all issues relating to the assessment of damages and Court proceedings are heard and finally decided. Therefore, it is clear that if a legal proceeding of this case is still afoot, the defendants are also entitled to launch an appeal, which we have just heard from Ms Sylvia Lim that they will be doing so. Given this, Mr Speaker, I am concerned that any comments that we make now, while possibly protected under certain Parliamentary privileges, could still potentially fall under contempt of Court. Also, our debates are published in Hansard and the media. I worry that commenting on and acting from the judgment when the case is not concluded with finality, especially if this matter is brought to the Court of Appeal, may be perceived to be interfering with the due judicial process in the administration of justice.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion. I must admit that I feel a little bit like an interstitial break right now. First, I acknowledge the judgment delivered by the High Court on 11 October 2019. This Motion is in four parts. Part (i) of the Motion which affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability is indisputable. I clearly support this first part of the Motion. I wish to speak on this Motion because I am unsure of the need for this Motion, which has no legal force when passed, given the powers already vested in the Minister through the Town Councils Act to order AHTC to take necessary and swift actions. At the same time, I am also concerned that the Motion relates to matters which have not fully concluded in Court. Mr Speaker, I understand that this substantive Motion, when passed by the House, becomes a resolution of Parliament. A resolution of the House is not legislation, nor does it have any legal force. Given this, should the call for AHTC to discharge their responsibilities as proposed in part (iv) of the Motion – asking for this House to call for and influence AHTC to recuse the said Members of Parliament "from all matters relating to, and oversight over, financial matters" – be made by the Minister through the powers granted by the Town Councils Act instead of this House?”
“Okay. The main point here is that I would like to say that legislative policies must also be aligned to the right to equality in our Constitution. Let me end, Mr Speaker. Our Constitution represented the dreams of a young democracy when it was first created with our sudden Independence and now bears the marks of the growth of a determined and thriving nation. We have come this far and won much praise for our world-class model of governance because of the strength of our Constitution in the separation of powers among the Judiciary, the Parliament and the Executive as well as the protection of the fundamental liberties of all Singaporeans, including the right to equality. The security of tenure for our Judges enables full judicial independence and, therefore, further upholds our Constitution ideal by providing effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature. We are in a stronger position than ever to keep fighting for these ideals so as to become the kind of society we want to be. Someone once said, "The strength of the Constitution lies in the determination of each citizen to defend it." Therefore, together with our colleagues in the Judiciary, our duty as Parliamentarians must be to defend the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for Singaporeans. For I do believe that the greatest threat to our Constitution would be our ignorance of it.”
“The other example I wanted to share is the debate on section 377A also —”
“That is right. I am demonstrating with the policy examples why the judicial independence is important, with my recommendation —”
“With other Members of this House, I had raised in the debate on the CareShield Life Bill that the differentiated premiums for men and women goes against the right to equality.”
“As the supreme law, all other laws passed must not contravene the Constitution. This is called constitutional supremacy. Therefore, Article 4 provides that any law enacted by the Legislature which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. That would mean that in debating Bills, we should consider their consistency with our Constitution. Such constitutionally-informed debates can protect the electorate's rights and allow public institutions like the judiciary to fulfill their roles, in full view of the electorate. I think we will all agree that this will help us build a more informed and engaged citizenry. Finally, Part IV of our Constitution protects fundamental liberties, including the life and liberty of a person, freedom of speech, assembly and association, freedom of religion, and equal protection, among others. Termed fundamental liberties, they are meant to be zealously safeguarded, with Parliament only being able to restrict these liberties in very limited circumstances. Hence, the legislation we enact must serve to protect these constitutionally-enshrined fundamental liberties, the Courts must also be enabled to protect these liberties by being duly kept independent. As we discuss the changes and significance of our judiciary system with this Bill and the importance of judicial independence with my earlier recommendation of tenure, I would like to seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to discuss a couple of policy examples where we could argue that judicial independence could guard against breaches on the constitutionality of legislation made, for example, to the equality provision.”
“Our Constitution delineates functions and powers of key public institutions, including the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and our Civil Service. Amendments to the Constitution have also enabled significant tweaks to our political system, including the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency system, Nominated Members of Parliament system and the Elected Presidency, to operationalise. Article 38 of our Constitution vests legislative power in the Legislature, which consists of the President and Parliament. This power enables us to shape our country's progress and our people's behaviours. How should we then exercise this power properly? What are the constitutional ideals that we must uphold? Please allow me to outline three key roles. First, our Constitution provides for the existence of different branches of Government that serve as a check and balance on one another. While Parliament has legislative power, the Judiciary has judicial power, and the Cabinet has executive functions. The Parliament vests powers of the Executive on persons other than the Cabinet, such as civil servants of high authority. The Judiciary can make judgments on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Parliament. The Judiciary can also make judgments on the failure of the Cabinet to properly exercise executive functions. The Cabinet implements regulations and policies based on the legislation enacted by Parliament. It is, therefore, important for us to ensure that each branch has autonomy, so that they can fulfill these functions in the best possible way. This is the basis for my recommendation for security with tenure to ensure full judicial independence. Second, we should strive to ensure the constitutionality of legislation for future judicial references.”
“The Judicial Commissioner scheme was introduced in 1979 to attract top practitioners to be judges for a period between six months and three years, then go back to their practice. The income disparity earned by judges and top practitioners was at that time very significant, so practitioners had to be financially attracted to become Judges. However, this changed in the mid-1990s when the salaries of Judges were raised by pegging them to top earners in Singapore. In addition to security of tenure for Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges to safeguard their judicial independence, I urge the Minister to consider extending the retirement age of Judges to 70, with optional retirement at 65, instead of having renewal of appointments, so that we can still retain the services of older yet experienced and able Judges. As a comparison to other jurisdictions, the tenure for judges in the US is for life, while the retirement age of judges in England and Australia is 70. These changes will enable the Judiciary to exercise the judicial power vested in them under Article 93 of our Constitution, free from encumbrances and worries that they may not be contractually renewed and, therefore, provide effective check and balance on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature. Mr Speaker, it was only with this Bill and studying the underlying Constitution that I fully recognise and appreciate the significance of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land as stated in Article 4, and our duty as Parliamentarians to uphold the constitutionality of the laws that we make in this House for the Judiciary and other branches to fulfill their respective roles independently for an effective democracy. Yet, the Parliamentary debates in this House rarely make reference to this supreme law.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill which introduces an Appellate Division of the High Court with the intent of refining our judicial system to enhance the efficiency and flexibility of Court processes. Sir, since we are examining changes to the judicial system with this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Senior Minister of State and this House to consider security of tenure to ensure full independence of our Judges. Currently, our Judicial Commissioners and older High Court Judges are contractually renewed and do not have tenure under Articles 95 clauses (2) and (5) of the Constitution, meaning that they do not have the certainty of staying on in the judiciary. They are instead appointed by the President with the concurring advice of the Prime Minister. A 2015 study by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on the appointment, tenure and removal of judges in the Commonwealth found that such renewable appointments "place the career interest of a judge in conflict with the judicial responsibility for upholding the rule of law in cases involving the government or other powerful persons who may have influence over the renewal decision. Such conflicts of interest may pose a risk to both the actual and perceived independence of the judiciary." Moreover, the reasons for offering contractual renewal to Judges no longer exist. I believe in the late 1960s, there was a serious shortage of High Court Judges, resulting in a backlog of Court cases. Parliament allowed Judges beyond the retirement age of 65 to stay on as "contract Judges", enabling the judiciary to hold on to experienced and able Judges. This Senior Judge scheme is still in place today.”
“When we offer protection and give them a voice to be part of the solution to the problems of abuse and oppression that we are trying to solve in the sex industry, Mr Speaker, I am sure they will come forward to say, #MeToo.”
“To this end, the CEDAW Committee has recognised sex workers as a group of women who are disproportionately affected by gendered violence, discrimination and marginalisation. CEDAW's approach to gender equality should inform any policy to protect sex workers from exploitation. We must involve and empower sex workers as equal partners and experts in determining the solutions that work for them. The physical, emotional and sexual violence that are systematically perpetrated against sex workers undermine gender equality. Studies have found that sexual violence is likely to occur more commonly in cultures that foster beliefs of perceived male superiority and social and cultural inferiority of women. At a time when a group like SG Nasi Lemak exists, when peeping tom upskirting cases are on a steady rise, it is paramount that we treat all forms of gender-based violence with urgency and gravity. We should, therefore, be hyper-vigilant of the normalising effects of impunity for exploitative agents and employers and do all we can to prevent the disenfranchisement of sex workers. I befriended a sex worker almost 15 years ago. Let us call her Lily. She shared with me that it was the sheer desperation of poverty back home that drove her to be a sex worker here so as to feed her son and two ailing parents back home. Lily eventually left the sex trade after having saved enough to take courses. She is now a world-travelling and well-respected professional in the hair and beauty trade. Sex workers may be looked down upon, but it is clear that many of them have much to contribute to society and also, like us, dream for a better life. Not being heard as a sex worker is no reason for silence when it comes to being exploited.”
“The Court is obliged to actively consider whether or not to order compensation under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I believe that the prosecution and investigation officer can invest greater effort in helping the victims understand their rights, produce evidence to guide compensation liabilities and collaborate with the Court to ensure the agents make these payments. This would increase the incentive for abused women to report their agents while also effectively protecting the interest of already-exploited victims. Mr Speaker, my recommendations may make some wonder if protecting sex workers and recognising them as victims may merely encourage more women to join the sex industry. However, experts have demonstrated that a framework that recognises the safety and welfare of sex workers elevates the safety of all women and makes it easier for those who have been exploited to leave the sex industry. The alternative, however, is that exploitative agents and sexual predators continue to act with impunity and so more women are preyed on to join the industry. We need to see sex workers as part of the solution, including our transgender sex workers, who are also sometimes victims to exploitative and abusive agents. We still have a biased cultural attitude towards the sex industry, one that legitimises men’s persistent demand for sexual services but villianises the women who supply these services. The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Singapore’s leading gender equality advocacy group notes that upholding women’s autonomy and agency, including that of sex workers, is crucial to respecting, protecting and fulfilling our commitment to gender equality as defined by the UN Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).”
“California's SB-233, which was passed just this year, echoes many concerns that we have in Singapore. According to the official Senate floor analysis of SB-233, sex workers are victims of violent crime at a disproportionately high rate. Because they fear criminal charges and mistreatment with the police, they rarely report crimes done to them. The analysis further offers that the Bill "simply prioritises...health and safety of people engaged in sex work, including human trafficking victims, over their criminalisation...for misdemeanor ...when this population comes forward as victims or witnesses of specified violent crimes." Mr Speaker, I urge the Minister to consider offering these victimised women conditional immunity from charges like soliciting and conditional protection from blacklisting to join us in our fight against exploitative agents, similar in principle to the certificate of cooperation given to drug traffickers. This will not just increase the number of whistleblowers but also reinforce the Bill's intent to protect vulnerable women and bring the offenders to justice. Criminal compensation will further improve our precision in targeting exploitation. Women who enter into arrangements with unlicensed agents are almost always in a very low socio-economic position and, therefore, desperate for work opportunities to survive and support their families. If we send them away with debt, we are implicitly pushing them to re-enter into risky business arrangements and fall prey to other dangerous agents. I seek the Minister's clarification if we could consider working closely with the Court to arrange for criminal compensation for the exploited women.”
“Could the Minister please share with the House what is the number of pimps and vice-abettors prosecuted in the last three years versus the number of sex workers arrested? Is increasing the present penalty of $10,000 to $100,000 sufficient in deterring these offences? The National Institute of Justice, the research agency of the US Department of Justice, released a 2016 report that pointed out that the "certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment". They make a clear distinction between incapacitation and deterrence. Their evidence, which encompasses a large body of research on crime deterrence, suggests that higher penalties neither chasten already convicted criminals nor have the biggest effect on deterring potential crimes. Rather, certainty, or "the likelihood of being caught and punished", is the major deterrent. This means that, in addition to raising penalties, we must also increase our precision in targeting and apprehending exploitative agents. To increase precision in targeting agents, the most intuitive and economic way is to enlist their victims. This makes the women under exploitative agents our most powerful ally. Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second clarification. The majority of women who go to Project X for support after exploitation refused to make a Police report because they fear that they will face punishment, deportation and blacklisting. When our most efficient and effective access to exploitative agents is through the women they have abused, will the Minister work with the sex workers by concretising victim support as part of the solution? Conditional immunity for sex workers specifically has been adopted in the American states of California and Utah.”
“She was told it would cost her $15,000 in total which she must pay over the course of six months. Three months later, Jasmine was arrested on the street. At this point, she had already paid $6,900 to her agent. Desperate, Jasmine went to Project X who helped her lodge reports with both the Police and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The agent and the employer have ostensibly violated the Women's Charter Article 142 on "importation of woman or girl by false pretences" as well as Article 146 on "persons living on or trading in prostitution". Unfortunately, after multiple trips to the Police station, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and MOM, Jasmine was deported three weeks later on having committed the offence of not working at her designated workplace. Meanwhile, the agent was still actively recruiting women based on the WhatsApp posts that Jasmine shared with Project X after she left Singapore. In yet another case, a single mother with a seven-year-old son in her late 20s was arrested after a tip-off. I will call her Rose. Rose assisted the Police in every way possible. However, the agent whom she never met in person, had covered up his tracks on WhatsApp with fake and inactive numbers. The investigation took three months. Rose had her passport taken away and given a Special Pass for the duration. Yet, the agent was not caught. Project X alone supports about an average of eight of such exploitation cases every year for the last three years and none of these cases so far saw the agents nabbed. So, it begs the question whether simply raising penalties will be adequate in curbing such abuse, especially for agents who know how to circumvent the law, who have intimate knowledge of the women's families and who leverage technology to conceal their identities.”
“Now, back to the amendments to this Bill, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I have two key clarifications to seek from the Minister. First, will increasing the present penalty of $10,000 to $100,000 be enough to deter the offenders? Second, given that the Ministry acknowledges the exploitation that happens in the sex industry with these amendments, would it be more efficient and effective for us to also engage sex workers as part of the solution by encouraging and protecting them to come forward to report on these offenders? Sir, let me elaborate on my first clarification on the inadequacy of merely enhancing punishments and the impunity of exploitative agents. A recent report recounts a man who facilitated Thai sex workers into Singapore and required the women to submit all their income for the first 20 customers. I also learnt about other examples of exploitation by agents from Project X, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that was started 11 years ago by a social worker who saw how sex workers are amongst the most marginalised in our society and needed support; and The T Project, Singapore's first and only shelter for homeless transgender women, some of whom are also sex workers. Let me share the real story of a mother of a two-year-old boy in her early 30s to illustrate how, even with the enhanced penalties, exploitative agents may still get away scot-free. I will just call her Jasmine. Jasmine came to Singapore to work on a six-month visa that allows her to do "free work" at the behest of her friend. "Free work" was the agent's way of expertly insinuating that she could do sex work anywhere in Singapore, even though the visa she had was to work as a performing artiste in a bar.”
“Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for acknowledging the exploitation that women face in the sex industry with this Bill and stand in support of the Bill that introduces significantly enhanced punishments for persons who exploit women and girls, including those under 16 years old and/or with mental health conditions, for sex. Sir, as much as I appreciate that we are protecting our vulnerable groups, I have to, once again, highlight the inappropriate description used. It was just last month when I brought to the attention of this House in the Second Reading of the Income Tax Act that we still use archaic and deeply derogatory terms like "lunatic", "idiot" or "insane" to describe our differently-abled Singaporeans in our legislature. And here we are, in section 144 of the Women's Charter and clause 7 of the amendments, we now call them "mentally defective"! Mr Speaker, unless our official narrative of a caring and inclusive Singapore is to still view our differently-abled Singaporeans in such derogatory terms and as lesser human beings, which I am sure it is not, then I urge all Government Ministries to ensure that all amendments to our laws brought to this House for readings must also be an opportunity to update all derogatory references to our vulnerable groups, even if the intent to protect them is well-meaning. I was not clear in my ask of the Minister for Finance with the Income Tax Bill. But I would like to be direct with my clarification with the Minister on this Bill. Can the Minister please assure us that the term "mentally defective" will be replaced with a more appropriate and dignified description that does not perpetuate this persistent need to label them as inferior human beings?”
“I genuinely was concerned because, at the Conference, certain Singaporean individuals were mentioned repeatedly and I wanted to know if there was a list that the Minister could share with us, so that we are aware who these individuals are who are actually under foreign influence that have security risks.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. I am sorry that I perplexed him and that he found my question absurd. It was actually —”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, let me reveal that this speech I just read was drafted completely and collectively by a group of young activists and advocates with me. I am impressed by their brilliance and moved by their commitment and love for Singapore. To turn many of these critical young lovers away and deny them their say would be a great loss for our country. Let us give our young ones space to challenge, roots to lead and reasons to stay.”
“While the organisers had painstakingly put together a "Call to Action" in the hope for concrete policy follow-up, the Government's only response was to commend the organisers. Our young citizens are concerned about the asymmetry between youths who work tediously to engage the Government and the Government's perfunctory and lukewarm response. To address this asymmetry, our youths must know they are genuinely heard. This includes reinventing the Youth Action Plan to go beyond providing grants and remodelling Somerset, to involving youths in the mechanism of policymaking, from feedback to testing and finetuning policies. Youths should also be able to choose their representation on the Youth Action Panel. We should also work to educate the public on national issues, help break down complex information and ensure they are well explained to citizens so that as many people as possible may contribute. Political literacy should be a goal the fourth generation (4G) leadership strives towards. "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently," said German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Last week, our very own Ambassador-at-Large Prof Tommy Koh made a similar call for change to our fourth Prime Minister. He said, “We should welcome criticism as long as the critic loves Singapore and is not out to destroy Singapore. Singapore will languish if its lovers are uncritical and its critics are unloving. What Singapore needs is not sycophants but loving critics and critical lovers.” Loving critics and critical lovers must be given space to grow and thrive and be recognised for their value and importance to our society.”
“The Inter-University Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Network, a collection of student groups in Singapore universities to collaborate in fostering safer and more inclusive school communities for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. There is Advocates for Refugees, a ground-up movement consisting of mainly youths advocating and raising consciousness for the cause of refugees. Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity facilitates youth discussions on topics, such as habitat preservation and development, and then channels these inputs to the Convention on Biological Diversity's international conferences and stakeholder processes. All these groups, almost completely youth-led, are invested in the principle of deliberative and shared democracy in order to co-create a shared and inclusive Singapore they want to be a part of. What then is the Government’s role? First, a mindset change. The Government should re-evaluate their attitudes towards advocacy, activism and dissent. They should learn to embrace these actions as long as they come from a place of good faith. The narrative must move beyond "activists as troublemakers". One must not arbitrarily draw the line between "good" and "bad" activists based solely on the topics they speak up on. To that end, all Singaporeans, from advocates, critics, dissenters, artists, intellectuals, writers, community organisers to "ordinary" citizens have their own experiences to contribute and form an important and untapped resource in Singapore’s style of governance. Mr Deputy Speaker, my young friends also urge the Government to review their method of engagement with youth activists or those who dissent. Take, for instance, the Government's response to the Singapore Climate Rally.”
“When that day comes, only a narrow range of ideas will dominate, group-think will prevail and we will lose the dream of a diverse, inclusive and democratic Singapore. We must not confuse those who insult with those who critique. Let us not underestimate the value of our youths speaking up and taking action to make change. For example, during the NUS controversy on sexual harassment, it was the courage and advocacy of youths that resulted in real policy reforms. If not for Monica Baey's courage to call out injustice, if not for the many students who pushed for a town hall, if not for the 400 students who turned up to confront their university administrators, it is unlikely that we would have seen change. Then, there is the Community for Advocacy and Political Education (CAPE), a student group based at Yale-NUS that builds capacity and political literacy for effective and constructive active citizenry with a range of important civic projects and initiatives, including producing infographics on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the "brownface" issue, as well as organising political education workshops with schools and Members of Parliament. Cassia Resettlement Team – my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had mentioned – is a ground-up non-profit powered mostly by youths, blending community and advocacy work to support residents through a range of interconnected issues, such as poverty, public housing relocation, ageing, mental health and end-of-life issues.”
“Okay. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand here as a voice for the many young activists and advocates whom I have had the privilege to learn from and work with in different capacities, a voice for their collective concerns and aspirations. They are passionate and committed to a more democratic, more politically engaged and more inclusive way of moving Singapore forward. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s words at Singapore Summit 2019 acknowledged the need to include our youths. He said, "For young people especially, being able to actively shape the future of our nation and playing a part to build this future is key to growing their sense of ownership and commitment to Singapore." However, does our political landscape give them the space to realise this vision? At the recent SG Climate Rally organised by university students, Singaporeans spoke up to urge the Government to adopt more structural solutions to the climate crisis. One of the rally organisers, however, admitted the difficulty in speaking up. She said that when asked to speak at Speakers' Corner, she feared being put on a "blacklist". Another young advocate doing work in the social sector also shared about fears that the Government would choose to penalise their organisation if they spoke about issues they see on the ground. Many young Singaporeans I spoke to collectively shared concerns on the limited public space for citizens to participate in discussion, debate and dissent without the constant presence of fear, surveillance and coercion, real and imagined. These feelings of paranoia and suspicion must not be simply dismissed. When citizens become too afraid of the repercussions to speak up and when critics become too cynical to engage, Singapore would suffer a great loss.”
“Do I speak from here or can I go to the rostrum?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I actually also have a question that the Minister might have unwittingly left out. At the beginning of my speech, I asked about the new provisions – I think the provision is section 17E(1) and (2) – and I cited the example of 2016 when a Singaporean man threatened to open fire on a Facebook comment, and the Facebook community is a religiously based one. So, now that we have these new provisions, would something like this come under that as an offence under the new provisions?”
“" The Bill recognises the need for us to protect our vulnerable and minority groups and is a step in the right direction by bringing them to the table. Yet, we must do more to make sure we give everyone a voice to be heard, whether they be those who suffer from religious trauma, LGBTQ persons, atheists, unwed mothers, foreign workers, new citizens and many more minorities. Because religious diversity may be a given but religious harmony, whether inter or intra, is not. A top-down approach may risk creating merely facades without sentiment and could, in fact, perpetuate the divisions. We must go beyond mere proclamations of peaceful co-existence to develop the ability to understand and communicate with one another across all kinds of divisions, within and between religions and cultures, as a fundamental prerequisite for our society to remain cohesive and robust. The Government must not over-regulate peace and harmony or intervene too early as it might rob us of the opportunity, as a people, to develop this ability. This intercultural competence, and not merely multiculturalism, must be a collective responsibility and priority for a Singapore that citizens from communities can call home, truly.”
“Non-religious individuals in Singapore can feel restrained providing a fair response to religiously-motivated opinions for fear of causing offence, even if unintentional. Finally, Mr Speaker, this brings me to the scope of inclusion in our policy and social narratives for religious harmony. Singapore is the world’s most religiously diverse country. Yet, one in four Singaporeans do not follow a religion, according to the 2019 survey by the Institute for Policy Studies. Religious harmony, which is the intent of this Bill, cannot be complete if we do not actively invite and include all the non-religious in our current interfaith initiatives. The Humanist Society Singapore had to insert itself in interfaith programmes through its assiduous efforts. Five years ago, they had to intently knock on the doors of initiatives, such as the Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) conference, National University of Singapore (NUS) interfaith, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Paths, UnConference, RosesOfPeace, the Centre for Interfaith Understanding (CIFU), OnePeople. People of faith must know and understand that fellow Singaporeans who do not have a religion do not necessarily oppose religion, they simply hold a different set of beliefs. I urge the Government to consider using "interbelief" instead of "interfaith" in our official narrative so that we are not alienating 25% of our Singaporeans and for all interfaith communities to do the same. Mr Speaker, diversity may be the hardest thing for a society to live with and yet perhaps, the most dangerous for a society to be without. Someone once said that, "Diversity is having a seat at the table. Inclusion is having a voice at the table. And belonging is being heard at the table.”
“Hearing the affected person or religious group’s side of the story, such as on how the sources and necessity of these donations are, and the nature of contributions of the governing body members, would be extremely useful in decision-making. I strongly urge the Minister to clarify on the removal of the notice period and the non-requirement of notice or consult. And to enlighten us with the implementation and training guidelines for the "competent authority" with these new provisions. Mr Speaker, let me invite us to think about the other side of this religious coin. As much as we enhance our laws to protect against religious intolerance, how can we also ensure that engaging in honest dialogue made in good faith for the purpose of intellectual and spiritual advancement will not make a person liable under the Act and other related legislation like the section 298 and section 298A of the Penal Code and the Sedition Act? Section 17F(10) in the Bill is implicit yet limiting in this regard. I urge the Minister to consider the inclusion of a "Stephen’s Code" into our laws to provide protection for reasonable speech made with good intentions for the sake of protecting public interest like Canada and New Zealand have. New Zealand’s version of this code reads, I quote, "It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject." This ensures that highly intolerant segments of society who deliberately take offence will not be able to silence reasonable and well-intended speech.”
“For the Bill to truly work in achieving religious harmony as its intent, its implementation should heavily engage various religious groups. Instead, the Bill allows for the expanded powers of the Minister in being able to make an RO without 14 days’ notice of his intention to the person against whom the Order is made or to the religious group that is implicated. The Minister can decide without affected persons and religious groups nor relevant stakeholders consulting and advising on the Order. I am concerned that the lack of notice and consultation may not sufficiently take into account the sensitivities of religious issues and the need to ensure good governance. A decision that is made without notice nor consultation may be seen as heavy-handed and controlling of the religious landscape in Singapore. While affected parties can appeal within 14 days of the order, the RO having been made would cast negative public attention on the particular religion affected. The absence of consultation may also mean that the Minister has less information to decide whether making an Order is the best way to achieve religious harmony. While the current Government may believe itself to be competent in making Orders appropriately, we may not be able to say the same of future governments. I think it is important to keep the safeguard procedures of notice and consultation to ensure that the law is properly enforced. Moreover, Mr Speaker, allowing swift issuance of the Order is efficient but may not be appropriate in all instances. For online communications, such a swift issuance may be more suitable. Yet, for ROs relating to not accepting, returning or disposing of donations and the composition of the governing body, these are decisions that can be undertaken less urgently.”
“Now, his group brings together, and support, many pro-pluralistic believers regularly to share with one another their experiences of religious trauma. Another community practitioner, in her 30s, who set up a healing group in December 2016 to support Muslim women from the LGBTQ community just shared this story with me. She attended a parenting talk by a psychologist recently at a mosque and was shocked to hear the speaker tell parents to treat their LGBTQ children like drug addicts and also encouraged them to put these children through conversion therapy. Despite a large body of scientific evidence showing that being LGBTQ is normal and healthy, and the World Health Organization having removed homosexuality as a disease 42 years ago in 1977, punishments are still imposed by religious communities. Both religion and spirituality can have a positive impact on mental health which is the basis for harmony and peace in our society. But we cannot and must not dismiss the religious hurt and victims of religious abuse in this effort towards religious harmony. I hope the new provisions will go some way in deterring these practices. Open dialogue about such emotionally-harming practices needs to take place more often. There needs to be more support for those affected by religious trauma. I am glad to see interfaith groups like Interverse by Saiful Anuar emerging in this area and hope to see more religious and interfaith communities take on such support roles. I also hope that the Government proactively encourages intra-faith dialogue beyond just interfaith ones to maintain not just religious harmony but also the mental well-being of our fellow Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, let me now move our focus to another key amendment of this Bill.”
“I recall the 2016 case of a Singaporean man who threatened to "open fire" at the LGBTQ community in a Facebook community based on certain religious beliefs and was subsequently charged for "making an electronic record containing an incitement to violence". Would the Minister clarify, as an illustration for the Bill, that the man’s action could be an offence under the new provisions of section 17E(1) and (2)? Mr Speaker, beyond physical safety, our laws must also protect the psychosocial safety and mental well-being of vulnerable groups against religiously-motivated violence. In the last three to six months alone, a community project I co-founded called A Good Space has been approached by three different groups who support people who suffer from mental distress because of religious discrimination. Some call this religious trauma which is sometimes defined as when religion has been weaponised to cause guilt, shame and a feeling of unworthiness in people. One of these groups was set up four years ago to address religious trauma for young girls and the group has supported a range of issues that were raised from micro-aggression with remarks like "your skirt’s too short, too tight", "why aren’t you in a hijab", to outright sexual harassment and violations. Another is an interfaith group that was set up last year by a 35-year-old man and his wife. He shared his traumatic experiences of deep religious indoctrination, peer pressure, pastoral surveillance and being asked to participate in the many disciplinary actions that his church did to those who were not faithful. He eventually became, in his words, an "evangeliser climbing the church ladder who have lost my identity, my education and all other passions".”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it takes a strong stance against religious intolerance that would threaten the public peace and public order of Singapore. It also expands the scope of protection beyond religious groups against such intolerance and discrimination. I especially applaud the new provisions in sections 17E(1) and (2) which explicitly state that it is an offence of any person knowingly urging, on the ground of religion or religious belief or activity, the use of force or violence and the target group or target person is distinguished by religion or religious belief or activity, or by ethnicity, descent, nationality, language or political opinion, or any other characteristic whether or not of a similar kind. The target group was elaborated in unambiguous terms in the Explanatory Statement on page 77 of the Bill. I quote, "the target group need not be confined to persons who practise a certain religion. The target group may be made up of atheists, individuals from a specific racial community, who share a similar sexual orientation, or have a certain nationality or descent like foreign workers or new citizens." In April 2019, the Minister for Home Affairs said that hate speech dehumanises marginalised groups, which enables individuals to justify violence against them. These new provisions serve to protect our vulnerable groups, including the LGBTQ community, from hate speech and institutionalised discrimination which, to my mind, always constitutes violence. This is, indeed, an important change that signals the coming of age of a progressive and inclusive society that we are and must be.”